click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130121
20130129
STATION
CSPAN 4
CSPAN2 4
MSNBCW 3
FBC 2
KQED (PBS) 2
LINKTV 2
KRCB (PBS) 1
MSNBC 1
WETA 1
WJZ (CBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 24
Search Results 0 to 23 of about 24 (some duplicates have been removed)
baker and george h.w. bush nsx 70 hageman of the world's nations. this subset can do that, we have seen a completely different scene and that is what i would describe as the 20 armors and three libraries and they've got about a dozen fires popping up here in different parts of the world. and oliver sudden, you have people who don't have -- a lot of people in congress who don't have the previous reference has basically come to the conclusion that the world is change and they really can't afford, nor do we have the public support for global engagement. when you go back home intact to people back home, it literally is like saying you need to diet and lose a lot of weight and i'll get a haircut or not solve the problem. the amount of foreign aid in person is shrinking to the point where it's relatively insignificant compared to the whole. yet the will to support that going forward into the event step out and say well, we are to be more engaged here or we can do more here or these are the functions that are working, it's hard to get public support for that. it's hard to get congressional sup
benton unofficial will be joining us. former special assistant to president george w. bush with us. conservative columnist and culture among our guests tonight. we begin with the very latest on the american killed in the hostage situation in algeria. fox disaster security correspondent jeff griffin with our report. >> in exchange for two american hostages, the kidnappers want to convicted terrorists released from u.s. prison. incarcerated for life for his role in the 1993 world trade center bombing and a pakistan in are a scientist who shot to american soldiers in afghanistan . the state department immediately ruled that out. >> the united states does not negotiate with terrorists. >> the state department, pentagon, and white house all were quick to call this attack terrorism. >> let's not forget, this is an act of terror. the perpetrators are the terrorists. >> terrorists should be on notice. there will find no sanctuary, no refuge, not in algeria, north africa,not anywhere. >> the u.s. military sent a c130 and a transport plane to evacuate the wounded, but the algerians are still
under george w. bush. even george w. supported reinstating the assault weapon ban. but it was the republicans in the senate who stood in the way. which is why it makes this compromise on the filibuster all the more perplexing. i think we need to look at the assault weapons and magazines for these guns. they'll do everything they can in washington, which is fighting back and pushing back on an common-sense legislation that is proposed and they'll savage anyone who gets in the way. >> jennifer: what is frustrating about the statement they put out against dianne feinstein she repeatedly said we're not taking your guns away. this is just about assault weapons and high capacity magazines. it's not just republicans who might vote against this new rash of gun safety legislation. democrats, even including harry reid, the majority leader, and montana's bacchus they might side with republicans as well. so in the bottom line, does an assault weapon's ban have any chance of becoming law without significant filibuster reform? >> no, because the democrats in the senate are being
. george w. bush got 62 million votes in the 2004 election and conservatives said he had a mandate. barack obama got 62 million votes in the two -- 2012 election, and conservatives started a secessionist movement. but the obama campaign took it to them and made a difference in the end. they helped create a new electorate, a coalition of concerned and they turned it out on election day. our two political parties are separate and not equal. the percentage of republicans who are white has remained fairly steady since 2000 at about 87%. the percentage of democrats who are white in contrast has dropped from 64% in 2000 to 55% now. independents have gone from 79% to 67% white since 2000. the depth of republican dependence on white voters explains a lot about the recent election. not least about its outcome. republican efforts to suppress minority voters back fired big time. [applause] in florida alone, 266,000 more hispanics voted than in 2008. similarly in ohio, 209,000 more blacks voted than in 2008. overall, while romney received 59% of the white vote, all hot -- obama -- omaha? obama got 93%
for the benghazi attack any more than george w. bush was responsible for the 9/11 attacks or ronald reagan was responsible for the attacks on our marine barracks in beirut that killed over 200 marines. whether it was called a terrorist attack or not, in the immediate aftermath as far as i'm concerned is irrelevant. we have to make sure it never happens again so that in the future our people are protected. that's what i want to get out of all of this. madam secretary, we commend you for accepting the recommendations and welcome your commitment to implement them by the time you leave the department. even before they committed conclusio conclusions, they moved to address shortcomings through increased security proposal. the vast majority for the proposal come from funds previously appropriated for lower priority programs. i hope congress will move without delay to glif the transfer authority it needs to start applying these changes. it is important to remember security is not a one off endeavor. it's a long-term responsibility and investment. in that context, the members led by ambassador pic
like wee winding tape to 2007 and -- george w. bush is really -- that tape speaks for itself. gornl bush did in 2007 introduce immigration reform that went basically nowhere. he made personal calls to members of his own party to get it passed. only 12 of the 49 republican senators voted for it. that was when republicans believed in climate change, when they had not started talking about legitimate rape. the republican party is in a distinctly different place. my question is marco rubio is out there with his plan. there's a sort of general circling of the wagon, but practically speaking in washington, is a house republican caucus going to vote -- move forward legislation that offers a path to citizen shi? >> it's a great question. you want to see the video game ber moving simultaneously, but i think people should be heartened by what happened today. there was a rush to put a face on immigration reform. you don't rush to back something that you think is going down in flames. you want to be associated with it. the fact that the senators jumped ahead of the president on this is a good s
presence put together by jim baker and george h. w. bush and the success in the engagement of it. but subsequent to that, we have seen a completely different scene. that is what i would describe as three alarmers and two alarmers. we about a dozen fires popping up here in different parts of the world within all of a sudden you have people who don't have the -- a lot of people in congress who don't have the previous reference have basically come to the conclusion that the world has changed and we can't afford nor do we have the public support for global open gaugement. -- engagement. when you talk to people back home and you say why do we give so much foreign aid? it is literally like saying, you know, you need to diet and lose a lot of weight and you get a haircut and solve the problem. the amount of foreign aid and presence now is shrinking to the point where it's relatively insignificant compared to it. but yet the will to support that going forward and even step out and say well we ought to be more engaged here or do more here or these are the functions that are working. it's
know, barack obama is no more responsible for what happened in benghazi than george w. bush was for what happened on september 11th, 2001 or ronald reagan when the marines got blown up in beirut. these are terrible tragedies and what we have to do is come together as a people to find out what happened and to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again. and that to me is the real purpose of secretary clinton testifying because we really want to make sure that this doesn't happen again. this should not be used for political gotchas but americans need to band together at times of national tragedy. we lost our ambassador and other americans and we want to make sure as the secretary has said we need to move forward to take steps to make sure this doesn't happen again. she's agreed to accept this plan, these points, 29 points, this was a high-powered thing, wasn't any kind of cover-up or washed over. this is very distinguished, mr. pickering and adds miral mullen had good recommendations and they should be implemented as soon as possible so there are no future benghazis. >
george w. bush. he's currently a senior adviser at the united states institute of peace. welcome to both of you. first, zbigniew brzezinski, your thoughts on john kerry as nominee for secretary of state? >> i think he's an absolutely top-notch choice. very good. experienced, solid, energetic with a broad vision and with a strong focus on trying to stabilize those parts of the world that are especially dangerous. i think he's practical, intelligent, well informed. >> brown: stephen hadley? >> he's in a way spent his whole life preparing for this job and it's good he did because he takes in the a very challenging time and i think he's going to have a lot of challenges before him. i think one of them is to prioritize where he's going to put his time. >> brown: well, you know, he spoke about the economy, getting the economy right first and foremost. he said "more than ever foreign policy is economic policy." did that sound right to you? >> i think that's right and i think this is a man who's grown up, really, in the political military side of foreign policy and national security and i think
more than george w. bush was responsible for the 9/11 attacks or ronald reagan was responsible for the attacks on dhaka marine barracks in beirut which killed over 200 marines and frankly whether was called a terrorist attack or not in the immediate aftermath as far as i am concerned is irrelevant. we just have to make sure if it never happens again savitt in the future of our people are protected. that is what i want to get out of all of this. so we commend you for accepting of the recommendations and welcome your commitment to begin implementing them by the time you leave the department. even before they submit its conclusions the department moved to address certain shortcomings in its proposal. the vast majority for this proposal would come through funds previously appropriated for the lower priority programs. and i hope congress will move without delay to give the department to transfer authority that it needs to start applying these changes. it is important to remember the security isn't a one off endeavor. indy 500 it's a long-term responsibility and investment and in tha
that that money is being effectively used to address certain things. george w. bush, i give him significant credit for the that far -- because they have set a certain standard, that these are our values, these are our standards, if you are able to enforce and implement those standards, we will provide you that support. there are some very good success stories there. it is a difficult climate with which to go back home and tell people that it works and it is and our national interest and we have a moral commitment on some of the tragic things that are happening, for example nutrition and disease and so forth. but as we see what is happening now in africa, and the threats there any changes that are taking place, africa suddenly has become a place where we have more interest. chuck was deputy secretary -- i got my acronyms maxed -- mixed up. he spent a lot of time looking at africa from the standpoint of his position in europe, kind of foreshadowing what was to come. and pleading, i think, for engagement in dealing with what was happening there. now we are seeing some of the consequences of all of th
that decision immediately. i support ronald reagan when he sent troops into -- grenada. i support george h w bush when he said troops into panama. i supported president clinton when he did what was needed to be done in kosovo and bosnia. in this instance, the president behaved in that tradition. >> the constitution has no exceptions for when you're having a tough time or when people disagree with you and you go ahead and do it. you were early 1970's, critical of the bombing in cambodia. you felt it was not authorized by congress. has your opinion changed? how is it different than libya? >> boarded my opinion -- nor did my opinion change about vietnam. >> is cambodia different than libya >? >> yes it is different. >> the constitution does not give this kind of latitude to sometimes go to war and sometimes not go to war. barack obama was explicit. people think or he and paul did like anything about barack obama. i like his forthrightness when he said, no president should unilaterally go to war. >> i respect that. you can be absolutist. it does not work in some instances when 10,000 people are
supported ronald reagan when he sent troops out. i supported george h. w. bush when he sent troops to panama. i supported president clinton when against the will of the congress, he did what was needed to be done in bosnia, closet vow, and so forth. and in this particular instance, i think the president behaviored in that tradition. >> i would argue that the constitution has no exceptions for when you're having a tough time or people disagree with you that you go ahead and do it. >> in the early 1970s affiliate vietnam you were critical of the bombing in cambodia. i think you felt it wasn't authorized by congress. has your opinion changed about the bombing in cambodia? how is cambodia different than libya? >> nor did my opinion change or has it ever altered about the war itself where i don't believe, and i argued that. >> was cambodia different than libya? >> yeah, it was. it was an extension of the war being prosecuted without the involvement of congress after a number of years. that's very different. >> length of time. but similar circumstances bombing campaign unthorszed by congress. the
on it immediately. i supported ronald reagan when he sent troops into grenada. i supported george h.w. bush when he sent troops into panama. i supported president clinton, when, against the will of the congress, he did what was needed to be done in kosovo and bosnia and so forth. in this case, i think the president has behaved in that tradition. >> i would argue the constitution doesn't have an exception -- that when you are having tough times, the constitution says that you just go ahead and do it. after vietnam, you were quite critical of the bombing in cambodia because you felt that it was not authorized by congress. has your opinion changed about the bombing in cambodia? how is cambodia different from libya? >> my attitude has not changed about vietnam itself. >> what about cambodia? >> it was the extension of a war prosecuted without the involvement of congress after a number of years. that is very different. >> length of time, but similar circumstances. and obama campaign and authorized by congress. it is not this kind of latitude to sometimes go to war and to sometimes not go to war. i thoug
Search Results 0 to 23 of about 24 (some duplicates have been removed)